When are remakes or sequels appropriate?

[aescuder]

I recently started a thread on which of your favorite PS1 games deserve a remake, found here:

<http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.276102-Best-PS1-game-that-should-be-remade#10717923>

and came across a lot of backlash concerning issues of remakes/sequels and nostalgia. Escapists' very own Yahtzee has already voiced his opinion on it (found here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/6903-Extra-Punctuation-On-Remakes-and-Nostalgia)

But I'm not completely convinced that all remakes/reboots/sequels are evil (although evidence is stacked pretty high against this thought). From my last thread FFVII came up a lot and I would hazard an opinion and say that FFVII doesn't really deserve a remake just because of its popularity and because Square is practically bathing in money and are still in the process of trying (and failing) to break through the innovation cap that FFVII and FFVIII set out.

That being said, There are those old one hit wonders of gaming (from small-time developers) that never even got a chance at a sequel on the PS2, certainly THEY deserve a next-gen remake, or am I wrong? (Again I would personally love to see Legend of Mana, Dragon Seed, and Future Cop:LAPD get a next-gen remake/reboot/sequel) There are so many great little gems whose innovative ideas may have been conceived too early for its time.



So the question is, when are remakes, reboots, and/or sequels appropriate in videogames? Which title truly deserves this and how would you do it? Would you completely revamp gameplay, story, or both?

 

[UmbraWitchy]

Remakes are never appropriate. Sequels are only okay when the series is actually worth expanding upon or doesn't give any closure at the end of the original.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Legend of Dragoon could definitely make a sequel work. Especially as a prequel during the Wingly War. It would provide an excellent story that would retain elements from the original.

 

[Optional Opinion]

Everything is can be appropriate.

If people want to buy it then they should make it.

I don't care if a remake slaps it pixelated peen in it's fathers face or skull-fucks its predecessors over hyped nostalgia riddled corpse.

If it's fun, I'll play it.

 

[EllEzDee]

Was thinking about this today...
If the sequel is as long as or longer than the previous game, uses a new engine and has a compelling story, a sequel is fine.
The "sequels" we've had for the past 5 years have actually been "expansions" or "expandalones". They need to die in a fucking fire.
Game X does well.
Developer Y decides to cash in on the success even further.
Game Z is made, which is simply a rehash of Game X released by Developer Y to make MUCHOS amount of DINEROS with no real plot, a bunch of poorly introduced characters and a minor bell/whistle added to the game graphics, á la Call of Duty (or every single major franchise on the market).

 

[silver wolf009]

Remakes are never appropriate.

I contest this. While I do feel that cash in remakes are a sin against the developer, good remakes can be something to look forward to. Just take Leaf Green/Fire Red, Soul Silver/Heart Gold, and the inevitable Ruby and Sapphire remakes for Pokemon. They took old games, updated them, tuned the gameplay, and did a damn good job with it.

 

[ronald1840]

Remakes = If the original game was only released in limited availability, niche title(Persona 3 Portable)

Sequels = The previous title is released to unanimously positive acclaim and goes to sell millions. Has either a story that can be reasonably expanded on (Mass Effect 2), or an interesting game mechanic that can be iterated on for the better (LittleBigPlanet 2).

But only sequels should exist as there supposed to be improvements. Remakes are however good, a lazy option between the two.

 

[Vern5]

Remakes are never appropriate.

I contest this. While I do feel that cash in remakes are a sin against the developer, good remakes can be something to look forward to. Just take Leaf Green/Fire Red, Soul Silver/Heart Gold, and the inevitable Ruby and Sapphire remakes for Pokemon. They took old games, updated them, tuned the gameplay, and did a damn good job with it.

Those Pokemon remakes were the biggest wastes of time ever advertised or developed. They could have just as easily made new Pokemon games but neglected to add another 150 pokemon and people would still lap up the product like it was mana in the desert so what was the point of remaking the same adventures?

Remakes of good games are a travesty, however. They usually end up diminishing the charm and power of the original game.

Sequels are less definite because they can end up expanding upon original ideas and just causing the entire series to evolve. On the other hand, sequels can also just be get-rich-quick schemes cooked up by lazy developers, greedy producers and rabid fans. It's very hit or miss.

I'm still wondering why prequels aren't such a big thing in the games industry. It's just as easy to create a sequel as it is to make a prequel and prequels give you the option to make little inside jokes and references to things that happen in the original game.

Actually, you know what would make a great pokemon game? One that is a prequel. The game would start with the development of the pokeball and you would get to enjoy the prestige of being one of the very first pokemon trainers. I would buy that game in an instant.

 

[Xanadu84]

Games are iterative, and a full release gives the most feedback. A Sequel is likely to be better, gameplay wise, then the original, and time and time again this is demonstrated. The issue is that a sequel with re-visit similar gameplay, and a continued story deals with all the pitfalls of sequels elsewhere. If a sequel can be appreciated by polishing an existing design, and does not lose to much to a continued story, then a sequel is a great idea. We should just be getting sequals to more esoteric games from more varied genres.

 

[silver wolf009]

Remakes are never appropriate.

I contest this. While I do feel that cash in remakes are a sin against the developer, good remakes can be something to look forward to. Just take Leaf Green/Fire Red, Soul Silver/Heart Gold, and the inevitable Ruby and Sapphire remakes for Pokemon. They took old games, updated them, tuned the gameplay, and did a damn good job with it.

Those Pokemon remakes were the biggest wastes of time ever advertised or developed. They could have just as easily made new Pokemon games but neglected to add another 150 pokemon and people would still lap up the product like it was mana in the desert so what was the point of remaking the same adventures?

I don't know about you, but until Nintendo stops snorting cocaine to try and find new pokemon, I would rather have remakes.

Fear the bane of mankin:

Don't look into his eyes, he will haunt you.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

Sequels can be appropriate when the first game is well-planned and there's more to what was going on than what was covered, unfortunately many sequels are often just knockoffs made without much effort to cash in on the popularity of the original...

Remakes... not as sure about remakes. I can't think of a good one off the top of my head, but I don't see it enough that I can say it simply doesn't work well.

I know I played the PSP remake of Final Fantasy: Tactics and I lost interest rather quickly, I would have figured I was more interested in the gameplay than dialogue, but when I saw they COMPLETELY got rid of the original dialogue I was annoyed. They had some unique quotes in there that will always bring a feeling of nostalgia to me.

 

[aescuder]

@Silver wolf: agreed. Although I think its about time that the Pokemon series can peek out of its safe hole and really start innovating, not just adding new bells and whistles and 200 more badly designed monsters. They can certainly afford to do risky moves.

Also there has got to be some case studies/examples wherein the remake/sequel was actually successful or even better (innovation or story wise, I think gameplay is a given) than the original.

Just at the top of my head:
Dark Knight movie, extremely successful
Fallout 3, I guess this is debatable
Diablo 2, best game ever created
Assassins Creed 2, again debatable
Metal Gear Solid, the ORIGINAL Metal Gear (1982) was not that great
Spider Man (PS2), you simply cannot tell me that the original platformers were better.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Remakes are never appropriate.

I contest this. While I do feel that cash in remakes are a sin against the developer, good remakes can be something to look forward to. Just take Leaf Green/Fire Red, Soul Silver/Heart Gold, and the inevitable Ruby and Sapphire remakes for Pokemon. They took old games, updated them, tuned the gameplay, and did a damn good job with it.

Those Pokemon remakes were the biggest wastes of time ever advertised or developed. They could have just as easily made new Pokemon games but neglected to add another 150 pokemon and people would still lap up the product like it was mana in the desert so what was the point of remaking the same adventures?

Remakes of good games are a travesty, however. They usually end up diminishing the charm and power of the original game.

Sequels are less definite because they can end up expanding upon original ideas and just causing the entire series to evolve. On the other hand, sequels can also just be get-rich-quick schemes cooked up by lazy developers, greedy producers and rabid fans. It's very hit or miss.

I'm still wondering why prequels aren't such a big thing in the games industry. It's just as easy to create a sequel as it is to make a prequel and prequels give you the option to make little inside jokes and references to things that happen in the original game.

Actually, you know what would make a great pokemon game? One that is a prequel. The game would start with the development of the pokeball and you would get to enjoy the prestige of being one of the very first pokemon trainers. I would buy that game in an instant.

Persona 3 Portable begs to differ, sir.

 

[Vern5]

I don't know about you, but until Nintendo stops snorting cocaine to try and find new pokemon, I would rather have remakes.

Fear the bane of mankin:

Don't look into his eyes, he will haunt you.

LOL. Somebody told me about this but I didn't believe it.

Still, why go through the same adventures when all new ones could be developed. Nintendo sort of shot themselves in the foot once they made a habit of releasing new pokemon all the time because they are obviously running out of ideas. So, why didn't they just stick to pokemon adventure spin offs or go back in time to when caveman were capturing pokemon by beating them with clubs? In fact, who came up with the science behind the pokeball anyway? These are the ideas Nintendo could be playing around with. Instead, we're getting haunted ice-cream.

 

[Vern5]

Persona 3 Portable begs to differ, sir.

Is that the one where you blow your brains out in order to summon? If it is, then you have me there. But I challenge you to come up with at least 5 remakes that were better or as good as the original.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Persona 3 Portable begs to differ, sir.

Is that the one where you blow your brains out in order to summon? If it is, then you have me there. But I challenge you to come up with at least 5 remakes that were better or as good as the original.

Soulsilver and Heartgold for one. Yes, the Pokemon remakes were improvements. The PSP port of the original Persona helped fix the shaky original localization. P3P as mentioned. Arguably Leafgreen and Firered. Take away nostalgia and they are improvements.
Possible upcoming candidates:
Devil Survivor: Overclocked
Persona 3DS

 

[Giantpanda602]

Remakes are perfectly ok, as long as they are 1) No longer being manufactured (downloadable versions of the original don't count) 2) Are at least 5 years old and 3) They actually deserve it.

 

[DustyDrB]

Remakes are never appropriate. Sequels are only okay when the series is actually worth expanding upon or doesn't give any closure at the end of the original.

Disagreed. I really want a Knights of the Old Republic 2 remake.

Anyway, I'm perfectly fine with a sequels and spin-offs as long as the game world supports it. Perfect example: Mass Effect. A universe as fleshed-out and with as many cultures and issues can support many more games than just three. However, they are ending Shepard's story with the third game. They plan to do more games based on the series in the future, and I actually love that idea.

When a character's story is done, bringing him back can be tacky and contrived. It also can damage the feeling of closure you gave with what should have been the final chapter of his story. I'm hearing people complain about this in respect to a possible God of War 4. I haven't played the third game (Yet. I did just get it and will play it soon), so I can't comment on that one too much.
But it seems like people are basically complaining about this:

-For three games (or two: God of War 2 and 3. They could have ended the series after the first game) Kratos had a goal.

-He finally accomplished that goal and his story should be closed. There is nothing more to tell.

-To bring him back for a fourth game and say, "That wasn't really your goal" feels forced and diminishes the value of the previous chapters.

 

[Raistlinhawke]

I definitely believe remakes are just evolved forms of patches, a large amount of tweaked issues for a cost. The example I mostly draw upon is "Witcher: Enhanced Edition". A remake of a game less than a year old, but with so many changes to the engine, character models, audio, and storyline, its difficult to refer to it as anything below a remake. Whether or not they are worth it depends on the amount changed and the caliber or availability of the original game.

In terms of sequels, most of the greatest games ever were second iterations of franchises. The argument kind of gets moot after a third game, traditionally, but a sequel is a good opportunity to flesh out gameplay mechanics introduced in an original product and expand upon the existing storyline. Once a publisher reveals itself to be a sequel factory, its easy enough to avoid their products for the developers seeking innovation with every step. This hatred of sequels just comes from people too lazy to look at the larger industry before thinking everything relates back to "Call of Duty" or "Final Fantasy".

 

[Vern5]

Thing is, there have been! Thousands of Pokémon spin-offs! Ranger, Mystery Dungeon, Dash and Rumble, just to mention a couple of their great titles.

OT, a sequel should be made when the first game had issues blocking it from being awesome (see - Scribblenauts), is awesome and has room for expansion (Pokémon), can be set in another area (TES), or has a story which hasn't finished, and would be great to expand on (Mass Effect).

So yeah, there's a lot.

Meh, were the Mystery dungeons any good? Rangers looked pretty interesting.

Persona 3 Portable begs to differ, sir.

Is that the one where you blow your brains out in order to summon? If it is, then you have me there. But I challenge you to come up with at least 5 remakes that were better or as good as the original.

Soulsilver and Heartgold for one. Yes, the Pokemon remakes were improvements. The PSP port of the original Persona helped fix the shaky original localization. P3P as mentioned. Arguably Leafgreen and Firered. Take away nostalgia and they are improvements.
Possible upcoming candidates:
Devil Survivor: Overclocked
Persona 3DS

Okay, that's 2 games in total. The Silver and Gold remakes are basically the same, give or take a few exclusive pokemon. I played FireRed and I immediately stopped so I could replay Red, which felt more fulfilling for some reason.

And now I'm upset because the arrival of this Devil Survivor: Overclocked is probably going to overshadow the original Devil Survivor, which is my favorite tactical DS game. I want the overclocked version but I'm am not willing to buy a 3DS. So unfair.